I’m sorry what? $5,000 a year to run a store? how is that anywhere near arguable in court
Also I’m not sure how this meets the requirement of the already given injunction in the US which is that they can not impede third party stores. A $5,000 yearly cost + a $5,000 upfront cost is pretty impeding if no other alternative is provided for third party stores.
for perspective, it seems such a yearly charge is about fifth of fdroid’s annual donations. If the first year required both the upfront and the annual cost, thats a little under half of their total annual donations just to keep the store allowed on google.
Aurora store only has a yearly donation estimate of 1040 USD. How is this remotely applicable to the injunction.
If this is a 5k cost to be allowed to run a third party store that’s a little better but, I would still consider that impeding third party apps.
and that’s ignoring the entire must only distribute in the US, which will require a framework in place to identify where users are prior to them being able to download and install apps.
The price only has to be paid if you don’t want to be subject to Googles advanced flow for installing non verified apps and want to access their catalog. Aurora will likely require the advanced flow and gets the apps through scraping, meaning they wouldn’t be subject to this, however they might gain access to some APIs that make the process easier.
Yea that’s what I mean, when the options are pay 5k, or have every user on the platform go through a 24h timer delay and multiple scare warnings, I think an argument can be made about it being prohibitive and against the nature of the injunction. If I understand the case right, they have already ruled that Google needs to allow for third party stores and can’t prohibit them, its just Epic and Google were fighting about how they would go about it. I don’t think them agreeing to this changed the already in place ruling that google was given.
I’m sorry what? $5,000 a year to run a store? how is that anywhere near arguable in court
Also I’m not sure how this meets the requirement of the already given injunction in the US which is that they can not impede third party stores. A $5,000 yearly cost + a $5,000 upfront cost is pretty impeding if no other alternative is provided for third party stores.
for perspective, it seems such a yearly charge is about fifth of fdroid’s annual donations. If the first year required both the upfront and the annual cost, thats a little under half of their total annual donations just to keep the store allowed on google.
Aurora store only has a yearly donation estimate of 1040 USD. How is this remotely applicable to the injunction.
If this is a 5k cost to be allowed to run a third party store that’s a little better but, I would still consider that impeding third party apps.
and that’s ignoring the entire must only distribute in the US, which will require a framework in place to identify where users are prior to them being able to download and install apps.
The price only has to be paid if you don’t want to be subject to Googles advanced flow for installing non verified apps and want to access their catalog. Aurora will likely require the advanced flow and gets the apps through scraping, meaning they wouldn’t be subject to this, however they might gain access to some APIs that make the process easier.
Yea that’s what I mean, when the options are pay 5k, or have every user on the platform go through a 24h timer delay and multiple scare warnings, I think an argument can be made about it being prohibitive and against the nature of the injunction. If I understand the case right, they have already ruled that Google needs to allow for third party stores and can’t prohibit them, its just Epic and Google were fighting about how they would go about it. I don’t think them agreeing to this changed the already in place ruling that google was given.